Tag Archives: Liberty Movement

Understanding The Tactics Of Subversive Globalism, by Brandon Smith

Never underestimate globalist sneakiness. From Brandon Smith at alt-market.com:

When the ideology of globalism is discussed in liberty movement circles there are often misunderstandings as to the source of the threat and what it truly represents. This may in some cases be by design. In the latest era of supposed “populism” led by figures like Donald Trump, an entirely new and very green generation of liberty activists find themselves hyper focused on the political left in general, but they seem to be obsessed with attacking the symptoms of globalism rather than the source. I attribute this to a clever propaganda campaign by globalist institutions.

For example, when globalism is brought up in terms of its conspiratorial influences, the name of George Soros is usually mentioned. Soros is an obvious bogeyman for liberty activists because his money can be found flowing to numerous Cultural Marxist (social justice) organizations and his influence is easily grasped and digested in that way. Conservatives like placing emphasis on Soros because he appears decidedly leftist and thus globalism becomes synonymous with leftist movements. But what about all the globalists within the political right? Continue reading

Advertisements

How The ‘Deplorables’ Can Save America, by Brandon Smith

If the liberty movement allows the opposition to define it or if it abandons the ideal of liberty, it will lose. From Brandon Smith at alt-market.com:

In my last article, “The Deplorables – Who We Are And What We Want,” I examined the basic philosophies that define what I call the liberty movement; the same group of Americans that Hillary Clinton admonishes as part of her “basket of deplorables.”

It is important to recognize that only foolish progressives actually take Clinton’s claims at face value. Clinton seeks to characterize a large subset of conservatives as narrow minded when she mentions the “deplorables.” But, it is how she defines “narrow minded” that is the crux of the thing.

When people like her talk about “racists,” they are referring to conservatives who want a secure southern border. When they talk about “Islamaphobes,” they are referring to people who want to stop Islamic refugees from being bused into the country without being vetted or philosophically and morally acclimated to our way of life. When they talk about sexists, they are usually referring to all males in general, because remember, social justice warriors (SJWs) claim that we are “subconsciously sexist,” even if we think we are fair to women. When they talk about homophobes, they are referring to Christian bakers who do not want to participate in services for gay weddings despite the fact that they should be perfectly free to refuse association with anyone at any time for any reason.

What Clinton and social justice lunatics are really referring to when they use these attacks are those people who want to be free to think and do as they see fit as long as they are not violating the constitutional rights of others. No one in Hillary’s basket is actually narrow minded, but she and her cronies pigeonhole them as narrow minded anyway.

Clinton is not actually worried about real racists, or real sexists or real homophobes. What she and the establishment are worried about are true conservatives, because our principles are not built on hate; they are built on reason and truth. It’s easy to defeat a movement driven by hate; it’s next to impossible to defeat a movement driven by truth.

It is absolutely essential for liberty activists to understand that the goal of the establishment will be to redefine the core of our movement. If they can repaint us as hateful, then we can be beaten. If they can fool us into acting against our principles in the name of winning by any means, then once again, we can be beaten. If we are able to retain our principles and repel the propaganda, then we will NEVER be beaten. Even the greatest war machines on Earth can be crushed by the force of a principled rebellion.

As my readers know well, I do not hold much optimism for America in the short term. Our economic status is dismal. In my article, “Brexit Aftermath – Here’s What Happens Next,” I warned that global markets would be experiencing a slow grinding decline into the U.S. elections. This is now occurring. It is my belief that international financiers and central banks will pull stimulus support from the global economy just before or just after the elections. I believe that the establishment will attempt to blame conservative movements for the fiscal crisis they created.

By extension, and as I have been predicting for many months, I believe that Donald Trump will be allowed into the White House. Whether Trump is aware of this dynamic or not, I do not know. The point is, our fight is just beginning, and it has nothing to do with a Trump presidency.

The U.S. cannot be saved from financial crisis; instability is a mathematical certainty. It is how we respond to this instability that will determine our success or failure. Here is what we “deplorables” must accomplish in the next decade if we are to rebuild America and defeat globalism.

To continue reading: How The ‘Deplorables’ Can Save America

Clinton Versus Trump And The Co-Option Of The Liberty Movement, by Brandon Smith

Brandon Smith’s hypothesis is that Donald Trump will win the election so the globalists can discredit conservatives and the liberty movement when things collapse. A corrallary of that hypothesis is that the liberty movement itself could be coopted, and thus discredited. This is a hypothesis that SLL does not reject, although it remains to be seen how things play out. From Smith at alt-markets.com:

Most of my readers are well aware of my position on U.S. elections in general – they are an eternal farce meant to give false hope to the masses. They are designed to make the public feel as if we are participating in our own governance, when in reality, we are only ever allowed to choose from a list of candidates that the elites pre-select. This does not mean that all politicians are corrupted or controlled, but according to the evidence I have seen, the majority of government represents the desires of a select few, and not the majority of the citizenry.

There is absolutely no chance of retaking our current government by working within the system. To be blunt, the system is now structured to protect itself and nothing else. To think that it can be influenced through “elections” is an absurd notion.

For the past decade, though, I have seen a powerful shift in the public psyche towards a realization that our government is built upon a fraudulent paradigm; the false left versus the false right. I also understand that if I can see this shift, so can the numerous think tanks funded by the elites. The elites do not always try to obstruct changes in public awareness; this would be an unrealistic and fruitless effort. Instead, they often work to co-opt these changes and exploit them to the benefit of the establishment.

Consider, for instance, the aggressive takeover of the Tea Party movement by the neoconservative guard. I joined activist efforts in 2007 when the Tea Party was small but growing and organized primarily around the goal of auditing and/or shutting down the Federal Reserve. Many people are not even aware that the Tea Party was launched by Ron Paul among other libertarian voices.

As the movement began to grow exponentially, there were some attempts to stifle it. Accusations of “homegrown terrorism” were thrown around, not necessarily by Democrats, but by the Republican Party. When the strategy of demonization failed, the same Fox News supported neocons that called for our heads suddenly began hijacking our bandwagon. I’ll never forget the day I saw a supposed Tea Party event featuring main speakers like Rick Santorum and Mike Huckabee; it was then that I knew there was no more Tea Party.

Of course, the elites were able to pirate the name (or the “brand”) and pirate some of the events, but they were never able to steal away the idea and the principles behind the movement. This seemed to confound the establishment. No matter what tactics they used, the movement, which I and many others have always called the “Liberty Movement,” just simply would not go away.

What the elites did not seem to grasp at that time was that the movement was not rooted in a single organization, or a single candidate, or even a group of “leaders.” Instead, the liberty movement was and still is rooted in a set of principles. Normal co-option tactics could not possibly work. They could take over the Tea Party, but true liberty activists could simply walk away and start another group or groups. We are adaptable, and because we do not have a traditional centralized leadership, we are difficult to pin down and control.

To continue reading: Clinton Versus Trump And The Co-Option Of The Liberty Movement

A Warning To The Feds On Incremental Prosecutions Of The Liberty Movement, by Brandon Smith

From Brandon Smith at alt-market.com:

At the very onset of what would become the Soviet Empire, Vladimir Lenin decreed the creation of a national internal army called the “Cheka.” The Cheka were handed very broad police powers and tasked with the disruption and elimination of any form of dissent within the communist system. Lenin launched what would later be known as the “Red Terror”, in which nearly every Russian population center had an established Cheka office of operations using surveillance, infiltration, nighttime raids, imprisonment, torture and execution to silence opposition to the authority of the state.

Some of these people were active rebels, some were outspoken political opponents and journalists, others were merely average citizens wrongly accused by neighbors or personal enemies. The Cheka created a society of fear and suspicion in which no one could be trusted and little criticism was spoken above a whisper anywhere, even in one’s own home.

It is important to note, however, that the dominance of the Cheka was established incrementally, not all at once.

Agents of the state began their “cleansing” of the Russian population by targeting specific groups at opportune times and worked their way through the citizenry at an exponential pace. The most intelligent, effective and dangerous activists and rebels were slated for destruction first, as they represented a kind of leadership mechanism by which the rest of the population might be mobilized or inspired. More innocuous organizations (like Christian churches and rural farmers) were persecuted as background noise while the political mop-up was underway.

Through this incrementalism, the communists were able to intern or eradicate vast numbers of potential opponents without the rest of Russians raising objections. The general populace was simply thankful that the eye of the Cheka had not been turned upon them, and as long as it was some other group of people unrelated to their daily life that disappeared in the night, they would keep their heads down and their mouths shut.

I would point out that the communists were very careful and deliberate in ensuring that the actions of the internal police were made valid through law and rationalized as a part of “class struggle.” Such laws were left so open to interpretation that literally any evil committed could later be vindicated. Man-made law is often a more powerful weapon than any gun, tank, plane or missile, because it triggers apathy within the masses. For some strange reason, when corrupt governments legalize their criminality through legislation or executive decree, the citizenry suddenly treats that criminality as legitimate and excusable.

Incremental prosecution and oppression is effective when the establishment wishes to avoid outright confrontation with a population. Attempt to snatch up a million people at one time, and you will have an immediate rebellion on your hands. Snatch up a million people one man at a time, or small groups at a time, and people do not know what to think or how to respond. They determine to hope that the authorities never get to them, that it will stop after a few initial arrests, or they hope that if they censor themselves completely, they will never be noticed.

In fact, corrupt governments issue warrants of arrest for a handful of dissenters and initiate imprisonment in a very public manner in the beginning with the express purpose of making examples and inspiring self censorship in the masses so that the authorities do not have to expend large amounts of resources to fight a more complex rebellion.

I bring up the historic example of the Cheka and incrementalism because a trend is brewing within our current establishment by which I believe a similar (if not more sterilized) brand of oppressive action is being planned against the liberty movement.

To continue reading: A Warning To The Feds On Incremental Prosecutions Of The Liberty Movement